A 100-foot-tall ship that is 15 miles away is not visible. That's because it is blocked by the curvature of the Earth. As it approaches, it "rises." First the tip of the mast is visible, then more and more of the ship comes into view as the ship gets closer:
Another fact which demonstrates the curvature of the earth is that it is possible to see farther over the horizon by climbing higher in the ship, or, when on land, on high cliffs.
Earth curvature line of sight:
That's true therefore why do you reject experts only on the globe side of the debate? Why not occasionally reject the "experts" on the flat earth side of the debate?You miss the point, being an expert does not make you right.
That's true therefore why do you reject experts only on the globe side of the debate? Why not occasionally reject the "experts" on the flat earth side of the debate?
Not only that but..... on this thread you have The Berean, Rocketman, and myself, all of which have a direct connection and involvement in sending satellites into space and putting folks on the moon. You reject our testimony outright and favor the YouTube videos you find online. Therefore you must not think much of us.
You have clearly gone past "exploring this topic". You are a flat earther. You may as well own it.
Here is a short list of observable proofs for a flat earth:
1. There is no visible curvature.
2. All bodies of water are absolutely level.
3. All aircraft move over a stationary flat plain.
Arguments against these facts contradict sensory perception.
Incidentally, I almost didn't post the above because it concedes ground that isn't justified. Let me explain...
The fact that very few (or even none - if there were actually none at all) flights go directly over the South Pole only proves that there is no demand for planes to do so. It isn't even evidence that the Earth is flat.
Put another way, if the flat Earthers want to point to the lack of great circle routes over the south pole as evidence that the Earth is flat, then what do they do with all the great circle routes that airlines fly every single day all over the rest of the world? Orthodromic (great circle) flights ARE NOT even close to being the shortest route between two points on a flat plane. Are the airlines all over the planet spending the millions and millions of fuel dollars flying way out of their way just to perpetuate a worldwide fraud designed to trick the world's population into thinking that the Earth is a sphere?
View attachment 25147
So, just to reiterate, the reason I went ahead and posted that portion of the Wikipedia article is because it gave a few examples of routes that do in fact go over Antarctica, if not directly over the pole itself. The point being simply that such routes do in fact exist. But as I said, even if they didn't exist, other orthodromic routes do exist. Thousands of them all over the world all day, all night, every day and every night.
Resting in Him,
I think that the purpose is clear. When you know better than everybody else, and better than all those so-called experts, it gives you a warm feeling inside. This works especially well if you don't actually know much and have a hard time following facts and arguments. Why feel ignorant when one can feel superior?
One one side either ignores everything the other says, or claims that the facts are all lies, refuses to go outside and watch what actually happens in the real world- there is no debate. There is one guy sticking to his preconceived notion no matter what.
So do you know what proofs are? You have simply made a list of unproven claims as evidence for another unproven claim. Claims are never evidence for other claims.
You can't derive a "true" distance from an assumed globe cosmology and then impose that calculation on a flat earth model.
The argument is propositional, "if" this "then" that.
"If" the earth is a globe and revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth, "then" we can calculate the sun to be at a distance of so many miles away when we use a triangulation with the moon.
This does not prove the globe model or the distance of the sun from the earth.
1. Is the Genesis account a flat earth along with the other Ancient cosmologies, or does the Biblical record describe a globe?
I wonder how many of these will end up being actually facts?These are three facts of reality that are self evident.
This is stated rather losely but granting the point, it is only evidence that we and the planet are moving together. If the planet was motionless or moving at a million miles per hour, it would feel the same to us. Therefore, this is not evidence of a stationary Earth.You and I and everyone else in the world "see" and experience a motionless earth.
What we see, regardless of where we see it from, is not in conctradiction to the idea that the Earth is a very large globe. In fact, what we see is precisely in keeping with that idea and contradicts the flat earther cosmology because, contrary to their claim, the horizon does in fact drop with added altitude, which would not happen on a flat plain.You and I and everyone else do not see a curved earth when we fly commercially. We see only flat straight horizons that rise up before us in every direction.
Again, this is precisely what would happen if the Earth is a spinning sphere. It, like the first point, is therefore not evidence of a flat Earth.From our perspective the sun, moon, and stars are various lights that move across the sky.
Only if you aren't looking carefully. Bridge builders compensate for the curvature of the Earth at 8 inches per mile squared.All lakes and oceans appear level in every direction with flat straight horizons.
Actually, yes they can be perfectly explained by exactly that.Modern high powered cameras are showing distant things over land and water that should not be visible over the curvature of the earth and cannot be explained as mere mirages.
No, actually they don't.Video is showing stars that bear no resemblance to the planets we have been shown by NASA.
Swing the chain dangling from your ceiling fan and see if it doesn't swing out an ellipse, no matter how carefully you try to swing it in a straight line.A spinning globe is not what we see or experience in every day life, it's unverifiable to ordinary folk and everyday experience.
It can be argued that purple unicorns populated the Earth before fish filled the sea. That doesn't mean that such arguments make any sense or conform to anything scientifically testable.It can be argued that moon phases and eclipses, ships that disappear into the distance hull first, have other possible interpretations that conform to a flat stationary earth and are not absolute proof of a spinning globe.
No, they don't!Modern wireless communications have other possible explanations than global orbiting satellites.
If so then every NASA mission to space also qualifies as absolute empiracle proof as well.Apollo moon landings are the only absolute empirical proof of a spinning globe earth, only if it really happened.
This is just about insulting! The implication being here that I and others haven't bothered to make any real arguments but have instead leaned on our "go to argument" which is to call people names and question their sanity.As far as I'm concerned this is a worthy debate. I'm personally not into name calling, or questioning some ones sanity or character, which seems to be the go to arguments of globalists. I could go on but I think you get the point.
I think that is yet to be determined.I hope my reputation survives. linger: